Global Discourse Best Practice Sheet
Basic principles
1. All editorial decisions should be made solely on the grounds of academic
merit, rather than ideological content.
2. Any conflicts of interest, particularly with regard to the peer-review process,
should be declared and steps taken to ensure impartiality.
3. All review processes should be governed by the standards and timetable set
out in the guidelines below.
4. Receipt of all correspondence should be acknowledged within five working
days. In cases in which correspondence cannot fully be addressed within that
period, an initial reply acknowledging receipt and estimating time taken to
deliver a full response should be provided.
5. All delays in correspondence or review processes should be explained to
interested parties, with regular updates provided when standard deadlines are
exceeded.
Review process
The review process in Global Discourse is aimed at maximising the potential of
research and argument, rather than paradigmatic gate-keeping. As such, the role of
editors and referees is to identify and support potential and to advance discussion and
debate.
Submissions are initially reviewed by the editor to establish potential for publication.
Authors are informed whether their paper will be rejected immediately or sent for full
peer-review within one week of receipt.
Papers deemed to have potential for publication are then sent out for double-blind
review by an established academic with expertise in the relevant field. Referees may
or may not be drawn from the advisory editorial board. Referees must agree to review
the submission within four weeks of receipt. Referees are reminded of the deadline
three weeks after agreeing to act as referee. If, after agreeing to review a submission,
referees are unable to complete the review within the given period, an alternative
referee will be sought immediately. Authors are informed of the delay and any
developments with regard to securing an alternative referee.
The review process contains two-stages (see http://global-discourse.com/info-forreferees-2).
The first stage is a blind review conducted much in the manner of a traditional
referee’s report. The referee has four options: 1) accept without revision; 2) accept
with minor amendments; 3) support publication with significant revisions and, 4)
reject. The initial report should explain substantively the decision taken.
Papers accepted without revision proceed to the second stage of the process, while
rejected papers are removed from the process.
1
In instances of decisions 2 or 3, the required revisions are outlined clearly and
constructively in the referee’s report. Decision 3 may be suggested only where there is
reasonable potential for publication subject to a clear set of revisions.
Authors with decision 2 revisions are requested to complete amendments within four
weeks of receipt of the decision. Authors with decision 3 revisions are requested to
complete revisions within eight weeks of receipt. In exceptional cases, such as where
further empirical research is required or personal circumstances intervene, a period of
twelve weeks may be granted.
All revised manuscripts must be accompanied by an overview of revisions. Changes
should be tracked in word processing software to assist in the identification of
revisions.
Revised manuscripts are returned to referees. The referee is entitled to request further
revision, should it be deemed that the initial round of revisions fail to address the
concerns of the first report.
If the manuscript is deemed suitable for publication, the referee completes a full
critical reply to be published alongside the article. This reply, engages substantively
with the argument at hand and identifies methodological, conceptual or empirical
issues of contention for further discussion. The reply can draw links to broader issues
within the research environment and pinpoint scope for further development and
exploration in the broader project.
Authors are entitled to reply to the referee’s reply. Referees can elect to remain
anonymous in their reply.
Authors must ensure that their paper conforms to the Global Discourse house style
prior to publication.
Standard deadlines for review process
The length of time from receipt of submission to publication differs according to such
contingencies as: the ease with which a suitable referee is allocated; the decision of
the referee, particularly with regard to the extent and nature of revisions, and personal
circumstances. While acknowledging these contingencies, Global Discourse has a set
of deadlines by which to manage the review process. Authors and referees are
informed immediately of any delays or difficulties throughout the process. No process
should, under normal circumstances, exceed six months.
Target timescales in chronological order
Actor
Action
Editor
Editor
Referee
Editor
Initial editorial assessment
Allocation of referee
Initial review
Decision returned to
author
Weeks in which to
complete action
1
1
1
1
2
Author
Author
Referee
Referee
Author
Editor
Editor
Minor revisions
Substantive revisions
Review of revisions
Reply
Formatting
Typesetting
Online publication
4
8
1
4
1
1
1
3